JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - On the suggestion of the learned counsels for both parties, this case was taken up for final hearing. 2. Borikhi High School in the district of Cuttack is a private school. Its management is governed by the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980. The outgoing managing committee in its meeting held on 30-6-1987 recommended names of seven persons (opp. parties 4 to 10) to be included in the new managing committee for the next term. The Secretary of the managing committee by letter dated 4-7-1987 accordingly moved the Inspector of Schools who by letter dated 6-11-1987 (Annexure-3), accorded his approved. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by such approval preferred appeal before the State Government under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. This appeal was heard and dismissed by the Hon'ble Minister, Education by the impugned order (Annexure~8) dated 30 9-1989. The Hon'ble Minister took the view that the Inspector not Having returned the proposal to the outgoing managing committee for substitution of any of the proposed members before according his approval, the appeal was not maintainable under Rule 5. 3. in their petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of. India the petitioners have urged that the term of the outgoing managing committee expired on .26-9-1987 and this committee having not passed any resolution more than 90 days prior to said date, proposing the names for the managing committee for the next term, as required under Rule 4(1) of the aforesaid Rules, the ultimate approval of the managing committee by the Inspector under Annexure-5 accepting the names proposed by the outgoing managing committee is appealable under Rule 5. They pray that the impugned order of the Hon'ble Minister may be quashed and the case may be remanded for fresh decision by the Hon'bie Minister. 4. Opp. parties 5 to 8 filed a joint counter and opp. party No. 3, the Inspector of Schools, filed a separate counter. According to them, the term of the outgoing managing committee was to expire on 15-10-1987 and in its meeting held on 30-.6-1987 a. resolution was passed proposing the names of non-official members. Consequently the suggestion of the outgoing managing committee was made within prescribed time. party No. 3, the Inspector of Schools, filed a separate counter. According to them, the term of the outgoing managing committee was to expire on 15-10-1987 and in its meeting held on 30-.6-1987 a. resolution was passed proposing the names of non-official members. Consequently the suggestion of the outgoing managing committee was made within prescribed time. They contend that after approval of the names proposed by the outgoing managing committee, the Inspector of Schools is to nominate the other members under Rule 4(3) and approve the managing committee. But such a situation had not arisen in the instant case, because the Inspector was yet to nominate the other members and, therefore, there was no scope for invoking the appellate powers of the State Government. 5. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules requires that not less than 90 days prior to the date of expiry of the term of members other than ex-officio members, the Secretary of the managing, committee' is to move the Inspector of Schools in a proposal for constitution of the managing committee for the next term with details of members other than those to be nominated by the Inspector, along with the supporting resolution passed by the managing committee. There is controversy between the parties as to when the term of the outgoing managing committee was to expire. According to the petitioners, the term was to expire on 27-9-1987, where as according to the opp. parties 5 to.8 and the Inspector of Schools, the term was to expire on 15-10-1987. The aforesaid disputed question of fact is not required to be decided in this writ application for the reason that it has no relevance to the point in issue. The maintainability of the appeal preferred by the present petitioners under Rule 5 of the said Rules is the point that arises for consideration in this case which is to be decided with reference to the interpretation of the relevant rules irrespective of the date of expiry of the term, of the ex-managing committee. 6. The maintainability of the appeal preferred by the present petitioners under Rule 5 of the said Rules is the point that arises for consideration in this case which is to be decided with reference to the interpretation of the relevant rules irrespective of the date of expiry of the term, of the ex-managing committee. 6. The order of the Inspector of Schools dated 6-11-1987 approving the names as proposed by the outgoing managing committee annexed to the writ application as Annexure-5 was impugned in the appeal preferred under Rule 5 and the Minister of Education and Youth Services Deptt., Orissa disposed of the same by his order passed on 30-9-1989, copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ application. As already stated the said appellate authority did not entertain the appeal on the ground that there having been no substitution of the names by the Inspector of Schools as provided for in Rule 4(2) of the aforesaid Rules, no appeal will lie under Rule 5. We are, therefore, called upon to decide if the said order of the Inspector of Schools is appealable under Rule 5. 7. Rule 5 provides that any person aggrieved by the Inspector of School or District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be, referred under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 may prefer an appel in form of a memorandum before the State Government within one month from the date of receipt of the said order. Thus there is no scope for doubt that it is only the order of the Inspector of Schools or the District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be referred to in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 which is appealable and not any other order of the Inspector. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 authorises the Inspector or the District inspector of Schools as the case may be, to consider the proposal for constitution of the managing committee sent under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 to him by the Secretary of th3 outgoing managing committee with the supporting resolution relating thereto. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 authorises the Inspector or the District inspector of Schools as the case may be, to consider the proposal for constitution of the managing committee sent under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 to him by the Secretary of th3 outgoing managing committee with the supporting resolution relating thereto. On consideration of such proposal the inspector or the District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be, may either accord his approval to the said proposal or return it to the Secretary of the managing committee for substitution of any of the nominated members giving its reasons therefore within a month from the date of receipt of the proposal, in the event the Inspector or the District Inspector, as the case may be, returns the proposal as aforesaid suggesting for substitution of any of the nominated members, it shall be considered by the outgoing managing committee within a period of one month from the date of reference which shall resubmit the proposal with or without modification to the Inspector or the District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be, for approval. Thus if the Inspector accords his approval without suggesting any substitution the only course to be followed thereafter is to nominate other members of the managing committee by the Inspector as provided under the Rules and thereafter approve the managing committee. In the event the Inspector instead of approving the proposal sent by the outgoing managing committee suggests any modification or substitution of the names suggested, it shall be returned to the managing committee for reconsideration. The managing committee shall thereafter resubmit the proposal with or without modification for approval. If the Inspector or the District inspector of Schools accords approval to the proposal so sent, the stage of nominating the ex officio members is reached and the Inspector after. nominating them shall approve the managing committee. The Inspector or the District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be, has also been given the powers under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 to substitute the names as suggested by him earlier in case the outgoing managing committee does not modify the proposal as per his suggestion to substitute. nominating them shall approve the managing committee. The Inspector or the District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be, has also been given the powers under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 to substitute the names as suggested by him earlier in case the outgoing managing committee does not modify the proposal as per his suggestion to substitute. Whichever course is followed in a particular case the Inspector is the authority who is to finalise the names of the seven members suggested by the outgoing managing committee under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 with or without modification whereafter the ex-officio members are to be nominated by him and it is only then he shall pass orders approving the managing committee. In other words, mere approval of the names suggested by the managing committee with or without modification by the inspector or the District Inspector of schools, as the case may be, shall not by itself constitute a managing committee without ex officio members being nominated by the Inspector or the District Inspector, as the case may be. "Managing Committee" as defined under Rule 2(j)of the said Rules, means "the managing committee constituted under these rules and includes the President, the Secretary and the members" The Rules provide that the managing committee of a private school receiving minimum full grant-in-aid from the Government shall consist of 11 members which includes the seven members to be nominated by the outgoing managing committee and four by the Inspector or the District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be. it is only after the approval of the managing committee as provided under Sub rule (3) of Rule 4, the managing- committee is constituted and comes into existence. It is, therefore, provided under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, that the Managing Committee so approved shall be deemed to have been duly constituted with effect from the date of issue of the orders approving the same. The order approving the managing committee under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 is appealable under Rule 5. 8. We shall now proceed to examine the contention of either of the parties with regard to the maintainability of the appeal before the Minister of Education & Youth Services Department and the correctness of the reasons as expressed in the appellate order holding that the appeal was not entertainable. 9. 8. We shall now proceed to examine the contention of either of the parties with regard to the maintainability of the appeal before the Minister of Education & Youth Services Department and the correctness of the reasons as expressed in the appellate order holding that the appeal was not entertainable. 9. The appeal preferred under Rule 5 before the State Government was against the order of approval of the Inspector of Schools in Annexure- 5. The text of Annexure-5 does not purport to approve any managing committee for the educational institution in question. It merely states that the managing committee consisting of the members named therein is approved with effect from .16-10-1987. The names of the seven members named therein are proposed by the outgoing managing committee. In does not contain the names of the ex-officio members who were to be nominated by the Inspector. As already stated no managing committee can be constituted without the entire body of members as provided under the Rules. Approval or otherwise of the names proposed by the outgoing managing committee is to be done under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules. Thus, such approval is not an order contemplated under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, Annexure-5, therefore, is not appealable under Rule 5 of the said Rules, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that copy of Annexure-5 was forwarded to the Joint Secretary-cum-Headmaster of the School and he was requested therein t6 furnish the proposal after convening the first meeting of the managing committee for election of office bearers together with the concerned Proceeding and the notice book of the managing committee for the verification and approval. According to him, the said endorsement in Annexure-5 is forwarded to the Headmaster which has already been constituted or else the Joint Secretary-cum-Headmaster of the School would not have been required to furnish the details of the' erected office bearers for approval of the Inspector. This led us to enquire as to whether or not the ex-officio members were nominated and duly constituted managing committee was approved by the Inspector of Schools. The Additional Government Advocate was directed to obtain the necessary records for clarification of the above point and produce the same in Court, if necessary, The records were produced before the Court on the next hearing date. The Additional Government Advocate was directed to obtain the necessary records for clarification of the above point and produce the same in Court, if necessary, The records were produced before the Court on the next hearing date. Nothing was available in the said record to show that the Inspector had ever nominated the ex-officio members nor did we find any order of the inspector in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 approving the constitution of a managing committee which could have been appealable under Rule 5. Learned counsel appearing for opp. parties 5 to 8 invited our attention to Annexure-B/5 which is an order approving the resolution No. 1 dated 16-12-1987.lt has been mentioned therein that Sri Parkhit Beura and Sri Nimai Charan Swain shall be President and Secretary respectively of the managing committee who are two of the members out of seven proposed by the outgoing managing committee. It also mentions that besides the afore- said office bearers, the others named therein would continue as members of the managing committee. In the said list besides the rest of the five members of the approved list, the ex-officio members, namely, local Sarpanch, local Sub-Inspector of Schools, Headmaster and Teachers' representative also find mentioned. It was argued by the learned counsel for opp. parties 5 to 8 that Annexure-B/5 dated 18-11-19R9 was an order in terms of Sub-rule (3 of Rule 4 and the same was appealable under Rule 5 of the Rules. His further contention is that the same having not been challenged in appeal, it has become final and is, therefore, not assailable. Having examined the said document referred to above, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to hold that Annexure-B/5 can be said to be an order as required under Sub- rule (3) of Rule 4. If the Inspector had nominated the other members as provided under the Rules and approved the managing committee, Annexure -B/5 could be treated as as follow up action as after the constitution of the managing committee the election of office bearers would take place and the approval of the resolution electing the office bearers may arise for approval by the Inspector Except Annexure-B/5 no other order of the Inspector has been brought to our notice approving the constitution of the managing committee. In this context we may again point out that Sub- rule 3 of Rule 4 of the Rules in clear terms says that the managing committee shall be deemed to have been duly constituted with effect from the dale of the order approving the same, it, therefore, contemplates issue of an order by the inspector approving the constitution of the managing committee which would consist of not only members proposed and approved by the Inspector but also the ex-officio members to be nominated by him. We are therefore, of the view that neither Annexure-5 nor Annexure-8'5 is an order approving the constitution of the managing committee within the meaning, of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and, therefore, not appealable. 10. It is not enough for the purpose of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 that the Inspector would assume and proceed on the basis that he has nominated the ex officio members The Inspector is obliged under the rules to pass an order approving the constitut on of the managing committee. From the materials placed before,us we have no hesitation to conclude that even though the names proposed by the outgoing managing committee has been approved by the Inspector of Schools, he has not passed any order approving the constitution of the managing committee after nominating the name of the ex-officio members. Such an order when passed would evidently be appealable under Rule 5. 11. From the aforesaid analysis of the law it is clear that the view taken by the Minister of Education & Youth Services Department in Annexure 8 was erroneous. Even though our conclusion is the same that the appeal before the State Government under Rule 5 against, .nnexure-5 was not maintainable, we do not agree with the reasons given in justification thereof in Annexure-8. The appeal was not maintainable, because Annexure-5 was not an order approving the constitution of the managing committee within the meaning of Sub-rule (3) of rule 5. -The non-maintainabi|ity of the appeal cannot be attributed to the reasons assigned by the appellate, authority that the approval by. the Inspector of Schools having been accorded. without requiring substitution of any names proposed by the outgoing managing committee, it would not be an order under - Sub-rule (3),of Rule 4, 12. -The non-maintainabi|ity of the appeal cannot be attributed to the reasons assigned by the appellate, authority that the approval by. the Inspector of Schools having been accorded. without requiring substitution of any names proposed by the outgoing managing committee, it would not be an order under - Sub-rule (3),of Rule 4, 12. In the result, we would hold that the appeal before the State Government under Rule 5 was incompetent as premature and we dispose of this writ application with a direction to the Inspector of Schools to issue orders approving the managing committee after nominating the ex-officio members as required under Sub-rule(3) of Rule 4 which order shall be appeal- able under Rule 5. We require the same to be done by the inspector within a month from the date of receipt of this order. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. No costs.